Rand Paul: A Political Firestorm
Just one day after his lopsided victory over GOP backed senatorial candidate Trey Grayson, Rand Paul appeared on MSnbc's 'Rachel Maddow Show' where he was asked to defend earlier statements he made on the "The Civil Rights Act of 1964."
During this interview Dr. Paul argued, the federal government may have over-reached it's authority when imposing "Civil Rights" laws on private business; he also said he agrees with 90% of what the act represents, saying Racism by the government establishment should not be tolerated and indeed should be outlawed.
However, such statements are sure to create a political firestorm. But why? This is a question that should greatly interest the American people. Does Dr. Paul's argument lack the constitutional validity inherent in the argument of, say.... Rachel Maddow? Or have we let our personal and political beliefs blur the line between constitutional and social justice?
I, nor any fair-minded person will question the importance of The Civil Rights Act for abolishing of the "Jim Crow" laws that institutionalized Racism, and perpetuated government sponsored segregation; such laws by their very nature are unconstitutional, immoral, and unjust.
However, if Rand Paul proved anything by his recent statements, it's that philosophical and intellectual debate is not welcome in the current political climate. Most media outlets, and sadly I believe, most elected officials are incapable of peering beyond the surface of this matter. Whether you agree with Rand Paul or not, he does at the very least provoke thought as to what constitutional leverage the federal government has over privately owned businesses.
The issue of race permeates many political discussions; sadly however, it is sometimes used to justify, unjustifiable positions. This is where we need the insight to see past racially charged rhetoric and examine situations strictly on there constitutional legality.
The recent events surrounding the passage of SB1070 in Arizona, perfectly exemplifies this point. It's opponents were unable to legally justify there position of employing, housing, and schooling those entering this nation illegally; therefore, they turned the debate on it's head and refused to answer for their condoning of criminal behavior, saying this was instead a racially motivated human rights issue.
--When ideology and "political correctness" take precedence over the security of this nation's citizens, we are in a dangerous place politically.--
In my opinion: these debates over government's role in the lives of it's citizens are necessary for a healthy and vibrant political environment; furthermore, such debates should not be limited to topics deemed "politically correct." --Even uncomfortable debates can be worthwhile.
Leave a comment: Your feedback is important to us.
I always appreciate a great article or piece of writing. Thanks for the contribution.
My website is about [url=http://healthyrecipeforweightloss.blogspot.com]Weight loss recipes[/url].
Reply to this